Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Parts of the Bible Christians don't follow

Posted on: September 14, 2006 - 9:14am

MattShizzle

Posts: 7966

Joined: 2006-03-31

Offline

Parts of the Bible Christians don't follow

I wanted to start a thread to put all the things we can think of that are in the Bible that Christians don't follow. Not even talking about the extreme stuff like stoning to death disobedient children, I'm actually talking about things they could actually do without going to prison, and still living a more or less normal life (ie, not giving everything you own away, either.)

1st off is the Sabbath. It's supposed to be Saturday. Nowhere did Jesus say anything changing it to Sunday, it's not in the Bible at all. This change was actually made by the Emperor Constantine.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team

1 Corinthians 11: 5-6
"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

This means that a woman should have her head covered in church. If she has no covering, she should have her head shaved.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

Matthew 6:25-26 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

This means you are no supposed to think of or plan your future, not even what you are going to eat for lunch. I find it amusing that many church bulletins list what the menu for the Wednesday evening meal will be.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

1 Peter 3:1-3
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

This says that women should not wear gold or make themselves look attractive.

Another sinner going to hell.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

1 Timothy 2:13-15
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

This means that God punishes all women for Eve's sin of tricking her husband, God then cursed women to suffer pain during childbirth (Genisi 3:16), but if she gives her husband children and is good God may save her.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

Randalllord, I would strongly recommend that you get one of the more recent versions of the text. 600 year old English is extremely difficult to understand given today's language. And don't forget to read the whole paragraph, and perhaps the one before and after it so you get the full meaning of what is being said and why.

/\ Just a suggestion

We see much of the same thing today in the media--especially the TV news. They take sound bites and skew the perspective of what is being said by the individual and ignore the real point of the comment. It is an effective method of making their own point, but it is most often a misrepresentation none the less.

The point about whether the Sabbath should be observed on Saturday (as some denominations observe) or Sunday (as the majority observe) have been obscured by men--Constantine being only one of them. The Bible actually recognizes both Saturday and Sunday in that Saturday was the Sabbath, and Sunday was the Lord's Day.

Quote:

...all Christians who consider the New Testament as the normative guide for their lives, rather than the decisions of men hundreds of years later, will ask whether the worship day of Christ and the apostles--Saturday, the seventh day of the week--should not still be observed today.http://www.biblehistory.com/The%20Origin%20of%20Sunday%20Worship.html

In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers

elanthan,
Do you disagree with any of my above remarks? If yes, please comment on the specifics if it and show proof of how I got it incorrect.
You addressed your above comment to me but I am not the one that commented on the Saturday/Sunday issue.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

This means that if you get divorced and remmaried you are committing adultery unless your original spouse was cheating on you. I have met many Christians that violate this passage.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

Let's not forget the Jewish dietary laws! There's nothing in the Bible changing that! I know the 7th Day Adventists tend to follow the entire bible, including this and Saturday as the Sabbath, though they still don't follow the extreme stuff.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team

I have avoided listing the laws of the OT so far because many Christians argue that "Jesus fulfilled the law" and therefore they are no longer bound by it. This, of course, is completly looney. Jesus kept the laws of the OT and even told his disciples to follow them.

Luke 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Regarding being saved, the Bible is all over the map with this issue, but the one teaching I never hear Christians follow is:
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house

This idea that one person in a house can save ALL members of the house is contrary to most other passages where each individual must accept Jesus and is avoided by most Christians.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

There is a hierarcy the Bible teaches I never hear being promoted by contemporary Christians:

1. Most exalted - Be a eunuch for God.
2. Next in line - Be Celebate
3. Lowest form of Christian if you just can't controll yourselves - get married.

Matthew 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

This is not unlike the muslim terrorists that believe that by dying in a Jihad they will go to heaven and get 72 virgins. Looks like you get 28 more if you are Christian though.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mat 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell

This goes along with becoming an eunuch.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

Randalllord, I would strongly recommend that you get one of the more recent versions of the text. 600 year old English is extremely difficult to understand given today's language. And don't forget to read the whole paragraph, and perhaps the one before and after it so you get the full meaning of what is being said and why.

/\ Just a suggestion

We see much of the same thing today in the media--especially the TV news. They take sound bites and skew the perspective of what is being said by the individual and ignore the real point of the comment. It is an effective method of making their own point, but it is most often a misrepresentation none the less.

The point about whether the Sabbath should be observed on Saturday (as some denominations observe) or Sunday (as the majority observe) have been obscured by men--Constantine being only one of them. The Bible actually recognizes both Saturday and Sunday in that Saturday was the Sabbath, and Sunday was the Lord's Day.

Quote:

...all Christians who consider the New Testament as the normative guide for their lives, rather than the decisions of men hundreds of years later, will ask whether the worship day of Christ and the apostles--Saturday, the seventh day of the week--should not still be observed today.http://www.biblehistory.com/The%20Origin%20of%20Sunday%20Worship.html

looking at the bigger picture though, interpretation of the scripture actually doesnt mean anything. if you're right OR wrong. why? because it can be interpretted any way whatsoever cuz of the vagueness it was written in. ancient antiquity was suppose to be obscure and open to interpretation. i mean think about it. think about the cultures that these were written in. why did jesus go UP? cuz they thought heaven was up there. in the sky. they were being literal, but meant for it to be interpretted as jesus going into the heavens. but there's no heaven UP there. when we look at it from an ancient antiquity perspective, we can see well, anything we want. and what's also important to remember... is people DO interpret anything they want and YOu or ME cant tell them they're wrong because the bible DOES SAY what they want it to say. you cant tell them they're wrong because they have found reason and motivation to believe what they need to fuel their interpretation. with that book being labeled 'god's word' (elite standard, supreme standard whatever) that creates that desire to dominate, that primal thirst for supremacy because we ALL want to be superior. as long as we have that GOD'S WORD at our fingertips and available to those who dont understand the essence of the bible and it's origin... well, the bible is open to whatever the hell people want it to say. if it wasnt fer GOD'S WORD, this world would have been so much better off. but man's greed and desire to dominate created it. so, reading the whole paragraph wont help much. i use to say the same thing to people when i heard them taking things out of the bible to bark about.

James 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

There are still a few states that have swearing of a witness in a court of law on a bible or when taking a public office by an elected official.

CRAP!!Galatians
5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Adultery = looking at a woman in lust Mat5:29
fornication = sex
uncleanness = performing an act of sin without atonement
lasciviousness = performing a sin purposefully
idolatry = what are those fishes and crosses for?
witchcraft = have you gotten your miracle spring water or wood from the cross?
hatred = tell them you're an atheist
variance = not doing what is expected of you
emulations = pride in achievement over others
wrath = pure unadulterated anger. baptist preacher kind of mad
strife = contention competition. falwell robertson need I go on?
sedition = rebellion against authority
heresies = not adhering to god's laws e.g. the mitzvot
envyings = wanting to be or have better like everyone
murders = christians kill too
drunkenness = ever been to warrior, Al on a friday night. the baptists from cullman buy up all of the alcohol. but that's only to keep them from dancing.
revellings = dancing/partying

Frankly, with all the contradictions and goofey stuff I have pointed out above, I can't say that I blame them for picking and choosing. What I don't understand is why they continue to believe it at all! I suppose they haven't read all of it yet or given it any critical analysis.

"When you believe in things that you dont understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition aint the way"

Frankly, with all the contradictions and goofey stuff I have pointed out above, I can't say that I blame them for picking and choosing. What I don't understand is why they continue to believe it at all! I suppose they haven't read all of it yet or given it any critical analysis.

"When you believe in things that you dont understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition aint the way"

From what I understand, plenty of (if not most) Christians have NEVER read the Bible!

And why should they? Most believe that all one has to do is to accecpt Jesus, so study required. If they attend church someone will steer them through all the confusion and only point out the passages they want them to see. If someone accidently comes across one of the above points, they are usually told "that's not what it means, you are taking it out of context blah, blah blah."

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

Now, if you would like to actually read the text with the thoughts of historical and cultural perspective, you might actually understand some things...

I don't get it. If people take the Bible literally, and do everything, they are ridiculed. If they don't take it litterally, they get ridiculed.

I don't know about you, but when you strive SO hard to be unlike someone else, you become like them. Ever heard of Westboro Baptist "Church"? If it weren't for the God thing, you guys would almost get along great!

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.

Our interpretations may not be the same as yours. My interpretation may not be the same as Matts. Only through examining the words can we reach the points of consensus or dissent.

Quote:

Now, if you would like to actually read the text with the thoughts of historical and cultural perspective, you might actually understand some things...

If it only holds truth within its 'historical and cultural perspective' then would it not be applicable to any other? How is it best viewed?

Quote:

I don't get it. If people take the Bible literally, and do everything, they are ridiculed. If they don't take it litterally, they get ridiculed.

It isn't about the people per se. These beliefs shape the people into what is seemingly an unidentifiable fashion. Without the bible then it would be just the people.

Quote:

I don't know about you, but when you strive SO hard to be unlike someone else, you become like them. Ever heard of Westboro Baptist "Church"? If it weren't for the God thing, you guys would almost get along great!

Phelps' church is at the front of my thinking once per week.

1. I don't like to go to funerals.
2. I don't hate people if they don't follow my ideology.
3. I have better things to do on Sunday.

Our interpretations may not be the same as yours. My interpretation may not be the same as Matts. Only through examining the words can we reach the points of consensus or dissent.

Quote:

Now, if you would like to actually read the text with the thoughts of historical and cultural perspective, you might actually understand some things...

If it only holds truth within its 'historical and cultural perspective' then would it not be applicable to any other? How is it best viewed?

Quote:

I don't get it. If people take the Bible literally, and do everything, they are ridiculed. If they don't take it litterally, they get ridiculed.

It isn't about the people per se. These beliefs shape the people into what is seemingly an unidentifiable fashion. Without the bible then it would be just the people.

Quote:

I don't know about you, but when you strive SO hard to be unlike someone else, you become like them. Ever heard of Westboro Baptist "Church"? If it weren't for the God thing, you guys would almost get along great!

Phelps' church is at the front of my thinking once per week.

1. I don't like to go to funerals.
2. I don't hate people if they don't follow my ideology.
3. I have better things to do on Sunday.

Hey, it's perfectly fine that your interperatation is different than mine, but to say in the realm of faith and ideology that I am wrong is not right. To no agree with me is ok. I'll tell you that I have experienced God in my life, and that's all I can say. I don't have any repeastable scientific experiments to prove God, just as no atheist can definitively say that God does not exist.

As far as reading the Bible with proper perspective, I must explain, I suppose. I think people make a large mistake getting into semantics and such with the Bible. And most miss the actual message behind everything. People on both sides of this fence get into this.

I'm all for your freedom to do what you want on Sundays, and practice what you want. But I find that a lot of the people here (and the clearly stated message of this site) seem to want to eradicate faith in God. I hope that is not the intention of people.

I get where a lot of it comes from. I, as much as you I am sure, want Christians to be honest and reasonable people. But, a lot tend to have only enough knowledge to be dangerous. The religios zealotry astound me sometimes. But, one must realize that these people are misguided. The only ones we should be chastizing are our own. As far as the rest of the world (unbelievers), Jesus did it best. He hung out with the worst of the day, because that's who needed someone real, and honest, and caring. But He didn't condemn them, as well we shouldn't. But be an example of what faith can be, rather than pushing to get someone to fit into a mold.

I hope this makes some sense, to you guys. I want to be a reasonable voice for the Christian world, not one pushing "religiousity," but showing integrity.

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.

The question would be: Which message? If there is an intersubjective message in the bible then why is it not apparent to all? If the answer is 'faith' then do you see where someone might have a problem with that?

Quote:

But, one must realize that these people are misguided. The only ones we should be chastizing are our own.

Yet I have read little from you with regard to how 'your own' are misguided. You entered the thread chastizing us and equating us with religious zealots.
I would like to read your 'true' vision of man's relationship with the bible in modern times and move you beyond evangelism into explanation.

.. but to say in the realm of faith and ideology that I am wrong is not right. To no agree with me is ok.

What? In the realm of make believe there are no rules.

trevorus wrote:

I'll tell you that I have experienced God in my life, and that's all I can say.

People have all kinds of experiences and hallucinations.

trevorus wrote:

I don't have any repeastable scientific experiments to prove God, just as no atheist can definitively say that God does not exist.

Extrordianry claims require extraoridinary evidence. - Carl Sagan
It is up to the claimint to prove his claim, not the skeptic to disprove it.

trevorus wrote:

I'm all for your freedom to do what you want on Sundays, and practice what you want. But I find that a lot of the people here (and the clearly stated message of this site) seem to want to eradicate faith in God. I hope that is not the intention of people.

That makes you a moderate. We are here to point out the fallicies in peoples thinking that lead them to believe in myths and fairy tales. If your faith or God suffer as a result then your God must not be all that awesome.

trevorus wrote:

I, as much as you I am sure, want Christians to be honest and reasonable people. But, a lot tend to have only enough knowledge to be dangerous.

I'm with you there.

trevorus wrote:

The religios zealotry astound me sometimes. But, one must realize that these people are misguided.

"Deluded" probably more accurately describes them.

trevorus wrote:

The only ones we should be chastizing are our own. As far as the rest of the world (unbelievers), Jesus did it best. He hung out with the worst of the day, because that's who needed someone real, and honest, and caring. But He didn't condemn them, as well we shouldn't. But be an example of what faith can be, rather than pushing to get someone to fit into a mold.

We don't chastize anyone. Our puropse here is to point out the flaws in their thinking that allow them to believe in nonsense. Jesus is a fictious character, so he didn't hange out with anyone.

trevorus wrote:

I hope this makes some sense, to you guys. I want to be a reasonable voice for the Christian world, not one pushing "religiousity," but showing integrity.

There can not be a resonable voice for any mythology/religion, only a moderate one.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

Frankly, with all the contradictions and goofey stuff I have pointed out above, I can't say that I blame them for picking and choosing. What I don't understand is why they continue to believe it at all! I suppose they haven't read all of it yet or given it any critical analysis.

"When you believe in things that you dont understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition aint the way"

I hear a lot of people talking about contradictions, but I (myself) have yet to find someone that could give references to the supposed contradictions...

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.

That is true, but could it not be argued that you, thinking that there is no God, and religion is all fallacy could be a delusional mind as well...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...

Quote:

Extrordianry claims require extraoridinary evidence. - Carl Sagan
It is up to the claimint to prove his claim, not the skeptic to disprove it.

Ahh, this is one I wanted to deal with... Talk about a deluded mind. Carl Sagan was out there, for sure. Do you know that SETI is pretty much useless (but it was his pet project!)? It's been observed that there are radiation bands, and clear bands in galaxies, and we happen to ride along in a clear one. This sopt is so rare that it's statistically VERY VERY unlikely that there is life within any sort of reachable distance... I'll look around for a source, if you need me to.

But I say that to prove that quotes and opinions don't make reality...

Quote:

That makes you a moderate. We are here to point out the fallicies in peoples thinking that lead them to believe in myths and fairy tales. If your faith or God suffer as a result then your God must not be all that awesome.

My faith in God suffers nothing from anything you, or anyone else might say. Fairy tale, i think not. There has been more and more historical evidence to back up the Bible, and as we are able to learn more about the world around us, it proves true over and over.

trevorus wrote:

I, as much as you I am sure, want Christians to be honest and reasonable people. But, a lot tend to have only enough knowledge to be dangerous.

Quote:

I'm with you there.

trevorus wrote:

The religios zealotry astound me sometimes. But, one must realize that these people are misguided.

Quote:

"Deluded" probably more accurately describes them.

trevorus wrote:

The only ones we should be chastizing are our own. As far as the rest of the world (unbelievers), Jesus did it best. He hung out with the worst of the day, because that's who needed someone real, and honest, and caring. But He didn't condemn them, as well we shouldn't. But be an example of what faith can be, rather than pushing to get someone to fit into a mold.

Quote:

We don't chastize anyone. Our puropse here is to point out the flaws in their thinking that allow them to believe in nonsense. Jesus is a fictious character, so he didn't hange out with anyone.

Well, again I must say that there is plenty of evidence to support his existence. Also, I must ask whether you think that the Iliad and the Odyssey are actual works by Homer... (doh!)

If so, you must back that up with traceable evidence to the original. But, remember, we don't have an original. We actually have a lot less copies of the Iliad than we do the New Testament. And it's been copied in many other languages, as well. The more copies we can compare, the more probable it is we have extracted a pretty accurate copy of the original.

Quote:

There can not be a resonable voice for any mythology/religion, only a moderate one.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...

It's amazing how so many great minds get so big that they don't see that chemical processes does not a thought make. The way I believe does not constitute mythology, but rather a world with more facets than we, as man, can see. Our science has shown us many things we once thought impossible, and mythological. Maybe one day, science will prove the existence of souls, and maybe you'll read God's personal signature in the tiniest quark, or the largest galaxy... Maybe not. But, as you've said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.

Well, again I must say that there is plenty of evidence to support his existence. Also, I must ask whether you think that the Iliad and the Odyssey are actual works by Homer...

I am not a scholar of the Illiad. Discovering that Homer didn't write it won't change my world in anyway.

trevour wrote:

Our science has shown us many things we once thought impossible, and mythological. Maybe one day, science will prove the existence of souls, and maybe you'll read God's personal signature in the tiniest quark, or the largest galaxy...

When the day comes that science proves God is real will be the day I take God seriously. Why do you believe now when there is no proof?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

I believe because I have tested it for myself, and have found that God does exist.

As far as the Iliad goes, I was trying to illustrate the fact that we take it as fact that Homer wrote it, and when it was written. But we have even more evidence of the Bible's writings, and somehow, people still find some reason to want to dispute it.

I believe when there is no physical proof. If it was not for hypothesizing, science would not exist. I just hypothesize in a theistic sense. It works for me, and I haven't been proven wrong yet. So, why change?

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.

I believe because I have tested it for myself, and have found that God does exist.

Please do expand on this. How did you set up the test? Can I do this test? Or is it a special test for special people (who just happen to already believe)?

trevorus wrote:

As far as the Iliad goes, I was trying to illustrate the fact that we take it as fact that Homer wrote it, and when it was written. But we have even more evidence of the Bible's writings, and somehow, people still find some reason to want to dispute it.

Haha. No, there isn't more evidence.

trevorus wrote:

I believe when there is no physical proof. If it was not for hypothesizing, science would not exist. I just hypothesize in a theistic sense. It works for me, and I haven't been proven wrong yet. So, why change?

Science tests its hypothesis. How did you actually test your theistic one? If you replaced the word "God" in your test with "Vishnu", would it make a difference?

trevorus:
I believe because I have tested it for myself, and have found that God does exist.

Great! Show us your scientific model where you really test your presuppositions/hypothesis. Make predictions based on your understanding of God? Show us your working theory. Otherwise you simply just assert. You have not proven anything to yourself and neither can you prove your God to others. Proving is much more than being sloppy in our trying to prove God to ourselves. Takes one to know one.

Quote:

trevorus:
As far as the Iliad goes, I was trying to illustrate the fact that we take it as fact that Homer wrote it, and when it was written. But we have even more evidence of the Bible's writings, and somehow, people still find some reason to want to dispute it.

Demonstrate and prove everything in your statements here. Without simply copying and paste just links. Show us that you know what you are really talking about.

Thank you.

Quote:

trevorus:
I believe when there is no physical proof. If it was not for hypothesizing, science would not exist.

Thats what I been told. What are we to do with our hypothesis? Nothing? I am a ..noob... and even I know better.

Quote:

trevorus:
I just hypothesize in a theistic sense.

*Hebrews 11:1Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen.
*Romans 8:24-25: For we were saved in hope, but hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for that which he sees? But if we hope for that which we don't see, we wait for it with patience. 2
*Corinthians 5:6-7 Therefore, we are always confident and know that while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord; for we ( ALL Christians) walk by faith, not by sight.
-----------

Faith is irrational as Faith is hope that is naked of evidences. According to scripture Faith is hoping for something blindly. To believe in something with out a reason ( blindly) is unreasonable. To believe without rational thought ( which is what Faith is -blind hope) is Irrational. I plagiarized from todangst that I remembered reading when I was a theist. We really do not consider how irrational belief can be sometimes.
------------

Christians are to live by Faith as defined by the bible. They do not live by hypothesis or theories they live by Faith.

Quote:

trevorus:
It works for me,

That is because you want to believe what you were conditioned to hope for blindly. Takes one to know one.

Quote:

trevorus:
and I haven't been proven wrong yet.

With all your talk of hypothesis and testing I would think that you would try to prove God to yourself and others, not wait for others to prove God is false. With your understanding of science I would think that you would try to build your case that there is a God as well as which religions God is the real God.

Quote:

trevorus:
So, why change?

Yes why change a thing? It is always better to keep our beliefs safe from testing and proving.

That way a mother has no answers from God when her husband beats her. Beats her in front of her child. What help/advice does the bible ( Gods word ) give to such a mother? Just take it and pray that the husband changes? Yes why change when what we have works so perfectly for everybody...your God is so very useful.

I believe because I have tested it for myself, and have found that God does exist.

Please tell us how you performed this test and what you accepted as proof for the existence of God. In science, a experiment must be able to be duplicated by others to ensure that proper protocals were followed. I am looking forward to doing your experiment and reporting the results here. That is the way science is conducted, but you probably didn't know that.

trevorus wrote:

As far as the Iliad goes, I was trying to illustrate the fact that we take it as fact that Homer wrote it, and when it was written. But we have even more evidence of the Bible's writings, and somehow, people still find some reason to want to dispute it.

Chances are, you have never read any real scholary critical works on the Bible. Do a google search. There are plenty.

trevorus wrote:

I believe when there is no physical proof.

Yes, that is called faith. Based on what you have said and what I have experineced from such discussions with religious people, you will continue to have faith even when the physical proof contradicts your belief.

trevorus wrote:

If it was not for hypothesizing, science would not exist. I just hypothesize in a theistic sense. It works for me, and I haven't been proven wrong yet. So, why change?

Many lay people misunderstand the meaning of "hypothesis". They think it simply means an idea, possibly with a flimsy argument. I suspect this is what you mean by "... in a thesistic sesnse." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. I suspect your hypothesis is untestable as it is not based on any scientific theorie(s).

Again, I must stress that you all jumble terms, and try to double speak your opposites until they cower in confusion.

Not going to happen today.

What I must say is this. My faith has never driven me to want to kill, hurt, steal, lie, cheat, commit crime of any sort, or coerce people into doing things they don't want to do... So what fault has this berthed? Do I reject science? No. I sure don't. Science is actually one of my favorite things to study, alongside philosophy and my own faith. But this complete absolute of science is never quite complete, as is my faith. That is what keeps us striving to discover more.

Any type of evidence that I may give you, you will undoubtedly (say in the case of praying for something) tell me that it was going to happen, whether I prayed for it or not. And that's the rub! None of us actually know what is coming down the pike.

If you want me to bear the burden of evidence, you must also take it upon yourselves to prove that God does NOT exist, which you all chant like a mantra. We are all responsible to back up what we believe to be true, with whatever evidence we may have. I have not seen any evidence that God could not exist, but there is quite a bit that points out that He does. (a creator, if you can't handle the term, God)

Let me go at it in a physical sense: Matter and energy has not been observed to ever come into existence from pure nothingness. Does that mean that it does not have a beginning? Think of it in the terms of the tree falling in the forest... Just because you have not observed the sound made by the tree falling, that does not mean that the sound never existed. What evidence do we have of that? Every tree that we HAVE observed falling has made a sound.

Now I bring it to the case of God's existence (or less personally, a creator). Matter and energy has not been observed to come from nothing. But everything that we know of has a beginning, and an end. Why is matter itself different? It's not been observed to be so. Even if you go to the Big Bang theory, it requires a release of energy and matter, which has NEVER been observed to happen without cause. So we can only go on what observations we have, correct? So, this evidence, as simplistic as it may be, does point to a beginning for the existence of the universe. But beginnings do not happen spontaneously, either. (Spontanaety can be defined as the APPARENT lack of cause) So whether you ascribe to faith, or atheism, science has really proven that there was a beginning and a cause. Whatever this cause OF the beginning is a matter for philosophers to contemplate. Until science can prove what caused the beginning, this is what we have. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? When all other possibilities are eliminated, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth.

But, to get back to what you all say my faith is... I reject the Westboro Baptist group (authors of godhatesfags.com). I reject anyone that says that God (or any other entity) told them to kill, or hurt, or steal, or commit a crime... They are wrong. Plain and simple.

I am completely open to any of you to try and change my faith. If you present hard FACT, I must accept it as such. I must also reference one of your own badge-wearing members who started a thread that stated that he was "shown" that Jesus did not exist. I am sure some of you have read that. That's not evidence, that's faith. The one thing you all seem to be SOOO against.

So until you can get past calling everyone with an experience in faith "irrational," (might as well say dumhead. without proving anything, it sounds just as effective) don't talk to me of truth.

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.

What I must say is this. My faith has never driven me to want to kill, hurt, steal, lie, cheat, commit crime of any sort, or coerce people into doing things they don't want to do... So what fault has this berthed?

That makes you a moderate, not a good person. God does not make you good, being moral, in spite of your religion, does. If there were no moderates, the terrorists would have no place to hide or a base to recruit from. It's moderates they rely on.

trevorus wrote:

Do I reject science? No. I sure don't. Science is actually one of my favorite things to study, alongside philosophy and my own faith. But this complete absolute of science is never quite complete, as is my faith. That is what keeps us striving to discover more.

What absolute are you talking about?

trevorus wrote:

Any type of evidence that I may give you, you will undoubtedly (say in the case of praying for something) tell me that it was going to happen, whether I prayed for it or not. And that's the rub! None of us actually know what is coming down the pike.

If you want me to bear the burden of evidence, you must also take it upon yourselves to prove that God does NOT exist, which you all chant like a mantra. We are all responsible to back up what we believe to be true, with whatever evidence we may have. I have not seen any evidence that God could not exist, but there is quite a bit that points out that He does. (a creator, if you can't handle the term, God)

The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic. Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? Get real. The fact there is something rather than nothing does not prove a God exists. If my answer to all science questions is "God did it", then we have not advanced our understanding of nature one iota.

trevorus wrote:

Let me go at it in a physical sense: Matter and energy has not been observed to ever come into existence from pure nothingness. Does that mean that it does not have a beginning? Think of it in the terms of the tree falling in the forest... Just because you have not observed the sound made by the tree falling, that does not mean that the sound never existed. What evidence do we have of that? Every tree that we HAVE observed falling has made a sound.

Now I bring it to the case of God's existence (or less personally, a creator). Matter and energy has not been observed to come from nothing. But everything that we know of has a beginning, and an end. Why is matter itself different? It's not been observed to be so. Even if you go to the Big Bang theory, it requires a release of energy and matter, which has NEVER been observed to happen without cause. So we can only go on what observations we have, correct? So, this evidence, as simplistic as it may be, does point to a beginning for the existence of the universe. But beginnings do not happen spontaneously, either. (Spontanaety can be defined as the APPARENT lack of cause) So whether you ascribe to faith, or atheism, science has really proven that there was a beginning and a cause. Whatever this cause OF the beginning is a matter for philosophers to contemplate. Until science can prove what caused the beginning, this is what we have. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? When all other possibilities are eliminated, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth.

So, your saying that God caused the Big Bang and Science proves it? That is not science. We don't know what caused the Big Bang. You apparently believe in a god of the gaps. Wherever there is a gap in our knowledge of science, you insert God. That's not science. Furthermore, you don't quite have Occum's Razor correct.

"Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham (Guilhelmi Ockam and Guillermi de ockam in Latin [1]). Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories.

"Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness):

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
Furthermore, when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood."

This means that the simplest answer is usually correct. Saying that God did it is too simplistic and is not science. Saying that God did it makes a huge assumption and therefore violates Occums' Razor.

trevorus wrote:

But, to get back to what you all say my faith is... I reject the Westboro Baptist group (authors of godhatesfags.com). I reject anyone that says that God (or any other entity) told them to kill, or hurt, or steal, or commit a crime... They are wrong. Plain and simple.

Then you are against the God you claim to worship as he is probably the most cruel and childish God ever known:

I am completely open to any of you to try and change my faith. If you present hard FACT, I must accept it as such. I must also reference one of your own badge-wearing members who started a thread that stated that he was "shown" that Jesus did not exist. I am sure some of you have read that. That's not evidence, that's faith. The one thing you all seem to be SOOO against.

Exactly. It's a spoof. He was using "faith" to show you how absurd it is to use faith as a proof.

trevorus wrote:

So until you can get past calling everyone with an experience in faith "irrational," (might as well say dumhead. without proving anything, it sounds just as effective) don't talk to me of truth.

Faith is irrational by defination. Reason is based on evidence and logic. Faith exists in spite of it.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca

It's amazing how much typing you do without answering anything. You did not refute my claim that something caused the universe. Science can only explain to us "how," not who. You make an assumption that God cannot exist with no reasonable evidence whatsoever. That's faith, too. You cannot refute my scientific reasoning that there is something we do not see, and cannot currently observe that brought our universe into existence. And it does not violate any scientific methods to say that there was a creator. Again, science tells us HOW, not WHO (at least in this circumstance)

Unless you consider, "God does not exist" to not be a claim, which it is. So, you, yourself, are a claimant. Where's the proof?

Why pray? Because when I do, for specific things, they happen. And so, saying a few words, having faith that it will happen hurts no one.

I can prove that the Gian Spaghetti monster does not exist. It relies on a fabrication of man (food products) to make up it's existence. Man is not eternal, and spaghetti has existed for only a finite time. So saying that there is an omnipotent being made of a food product, made by man is impossible.

Now, let me reiterate. We have never, never, never, never observed anything that happens without cause. So until science can prove that God did not do it, He did. So what? As I have said before, science can tell us how, but it cannot explain why, or who. So, unless you can answer that, it is not unreasonable to think that there was a creative force, thinking or otherwise.

Let me place this burden on you...
How did we come into existence? Did it just happen? Did chemicals come together, to eventually form a thinking sentient being? If that's what you think, where is the proof of that? Where is there any HINT that living beings can spring from their component elements? When does a system as complex as the DNA/RNA system, with all it's interdependent cellular structures just "happen?" Ever heard of irreducable complexity?

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.

If nothing can exist without being caused, then what caused God? If God always existed, so could the universe, and your claim that nothing can exist without having been caused is ad hoc and therefore useless and irrational. The burden of proof is on someone who claims that something does exist. If I claimed I invented a time machine and demanded you to prove I did not, that would be pretty stupid, now wouldn't it? Same thing with claiming God exists.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team

But, to get back to what you all say my faith is... I reject the Westboro Baptist group (authors of godhatesfags.com). I reject anyone that says that God (or any other entity) told them to kill, or hurt, or steal, or commit a crime... They are wrong. Plain and simple.

Then you are against the God you claim to worship as he is probably the most cruel and childish God ever known:

Ok, let me stop you there... You have no idea of my concept of God. It does not line up with their's because they stand in judgement over everyone who appears to be sinners in THEIR eyes. Everything I have ever known about God says that it is not man's place to stand in judgement over anyone else, because we have all done wrong. Who are you to say I am against the God is claim to worship? That's man's twisting of what they want God to be.

Cruel and childish, eh? I think you started talking about yourself there...
One who accuses God of being cruel and childish are the ones who are so close minded to the concept that there is something larger than us, that they can't deal with it. To refute the existence of God with rhetoric, and random skeptic articles is childish. It has no basis in science. A blog does not a fact make. Just because it is in text, doesn't mean it is true.

Here, take the concept of Quantum physics. It basically says we CANNOT know where something is AND it's velocity at the same time... How is that? I think part of it depends on the system of observation. Do you know that everything you percieve is actually in the past? Because our brain has a certain speed that it processes information. Even though the electrical impulses may travel at the speed of light, they still must travel. Which means time elapsing. So, your observations our actually slightly flawed, in that we cannot truly have a "now."

Where I am going with that is that there is a large possibility that there is something outside of our observable system. You seem to rely on your own reasoning and observation to think. And that's all any of us can do. But that does introduce an element of error in EVERYTHING. You're not infallible, neither am I. Neither are all of your atheistic writers who spend their time trying to prove God does not exist. Perhaps, you, in a metaphorical sense, are turned away from what you say does not exist. Because you do not observe it, it doesn't exist to you.

Most of the time, all I hear from you is that you don't like the idea of a God because he doesn't suit your needs and your personabilities. Fine, the God YOU want to see does not exist... Fine. But still, you have not proven a thing with scientific observation that there does not exist a creator.

Back to the ORIGINAL subject of this thread, a lot of you guys like to take the Old Testament and ask why Christians don't follow that... It's easy to explain. The people in the OT were Jewish, and they lived by a set of rules and guidelines. When Christ came, he came to introduce a new system that didn't rely on the Law to vindicate people of the wrong that they did.

With this kind of talk, it takes some need of spirituality, and eternal consequence. These things you will debate does not exist either. Oh well.

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.

If nothing can exist without being caused, then what caused God? If God always existed, so could the universe, and your claim that nothing can exist without having been caused is ad hoc and therefore useless and irrational. The burden of proof is on someone who claims that something does exist. If I claimed I invented a time machine and demanded you to prove I did not, that would be pretty stupid, now wouldn't it? Same thing with claiming God exists.

Then prove that matter OR energy existed eternally. The universe cannot have existed indefinitely because of it's continuous expansion. By that observation, there must me a starting point. My claim that nothing exists without cause lines up with EVERY SINGLE observation that science has ever had. My claim that things DO NOT happen without cause lines up with EVERY observation that science has had. Prove otherwise.

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.

If you don't think God is cruel and childish, you obviously have never read the Babble (or maybe you believe in a different god?)

Where is your evidence for this accusation?

Also, your question, "What caused God?" has no answer. Either you think matter is eternal, or I think God is eternal. In my model, an omnipotent God is required for the universe to exist. In your model, what would necessitate matter or energy being eternal.

Who is more irrational?A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?-Brad Stine
The reason why atheists deny God is that they can't stand the fact that there IS someone more powerful than they are.

Randalllord already posted a link to the cruelty of the biblical God. As I said before, if you consider god eternal, then your statement that nothing can exist without being caused is ad hoc and worthless.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team

Finally!! Progress. Now, try to apply that attitude to the basis of your world view, the bible. I know it's hard, but I have faith in you

trevorus wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

If you don't think God is cruel and childish, you obviously have never read the Babble (or maybe you believe in a different god?)

Where is your evidence for this accusation?

He told you, in the bible. Didn't you look at the sceptics annotated bible link?

trevorus wrote:

Also, your question, "What caused God?" has no answer. Either you think matter is eternal, or I think God is eternal. In my model, an omnipotent God is required for the universe to exist. In your model, what would necessitate matter or energy being eternal.

Well you see, matter/energy actually exists. In the real world. Where I and MattShizzle live. Wether it is eternal or what we call time has a starting point is besides the point. Your envoking the concept of god is completely baseless, you have no evidence such an entity exists. Tell me, what other baseless concepts do you envoke, in all other areas of your life? And please refrain from referring to your god creation thought as a "model", as if it was some sort of scientific model. It explains nothing and everything at the same time, completely untestable and predicts nothing. It's the definition of a useless concept.

Oh, and nice ramble on the Quantum Mechanics and propagation of information. You try to make it sound like you grasp the concepts, however I think you need to do some studying before diving into the realm of physics on this board. And in general.

Ok, let me stop you there... You have no idea of my concept of God. It does not line up with their's because they stand in judgement over everyone who appears to be sinners in THEIR eyes. Everything I have ever known about God says that it is not man's place to stand in judgement over anyone else, because we have all done wrong. Who are you to say I am against the God is claim to worship? That's man's twisting of what they want God to be.

The god you worship is the god of the Bible, Yes? Please read throught the link I sent you before responding next time.
It will keep you from saying really stupid things.

trevorus wrote:

Cruel and childish, eh? I think you started talking about yourself there...

See my above resposne.

trevorus wrote:

One who accuses God of being cruel and childish are the ones who are so close minded to the concept that there is something larger than us, that they can't deal with it. To refute the existence of God with rhetoric, and random skeptic articles is childish. It has no basis in science.

There is no basis for anything supernatural in science.

trevorus wrote:

A blog does not a fact make. Just because it is in text, doesn't mean it is true.

That's true, now lets apply that to the Bible too.

trevorus wrote:

Here, take the concept of Quantum physics. It basically says we CANNOT know where something is AND it's velocity at the same time... How is that? I think part of it depends on the system of observation. Do you know that everything you percieve is actually in the past? Because our brain has a certain speed that it processes information. Even though the electrical impulses may travel at the speed of light, they still must travel. Which means time elapsing. So, your observations our actually slightly flawed, in that we cannot truly have a "now."

I really find it funny when a lay person begins to teach me quantum physics. I was a physics major in college.
Most people try to use quantum mechanics to establish all kind of unscientific/nutty ideas and they usually have no idea what they are talking about.

trevorus wrote:

Where I am going with that is that there is a large possibility that there is something outside of our observable system. You seem to rely on your own reasoning and observation to think. And that's all any of us can do. But that does introduce an element of error in EVERYTHING. You're not infallible, neither am I. Neither are all of your atheistic writers who spend their time trying to prove God does not exist. Perhaps, you, in a metaphorical sense, are turned away from what you say does not exist. Because you do not observe it, it doesn't exist to you.

If something exists outside the universe we can not study or know it.

trevorus wrote:

Most of the time, all I hear from you is that you don't like the idea of a God because he doesn't suit your needs and your personabilities. Fine, the God YOU want to see does not exist... Fine. But still, you have not proven a thing with scientific observation that there does not exist a creator.

Strawman fallicy.

trevorus wrote:

Back to the ORIGINAL subject of this thread, a lot of you guys like to take the Old Testament and ask why Christians don't follow that... It's easy to explain. The people in the OT were Jewish, and they lived by a set of rules and guidelines. When Christ came, he came to introduce a new system that didn't rely on the Law to vindicate people of the wrong that they did.

Which is why I stated I was limiting my examples to NT passages. Please go back and see for yourself. On Fri, 2006-09-15 23:53 I said:

Randalllord wrote:

I have avoided listing the laws of the OT so far because many Christians argue that "Jesus fulfilled the law" and therefore they are no longer bound by it. This, of course, is completly looney. Jesus kept the laws of the OT and even told his disciples to follow them.

Please become familiar with this entire thread before making any more absurd statements. I makes you look foolish and/or stupid.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca